On March 6, Judge Jesus Bernal denied a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Claremont Unified School District’s board members and two of its principals, but dismissed the complaint against the district itself. Bernal also dismissed the complaint against district Superintendent James Elsasser, but gave Riley a chance to amend it.

Riley and Riley’s Farm in Oak Glen, of which he is a principal shareholder, brought the suit after the district canceled field trips and prohibited more following controversial tweets Riley made. Facebook and Twitter users had accused Riley of posting misogynistic and racist messages, and critics encouraged others to stay away from the farm, known for its u-pick apples and living history programs.

“Terminating this benefit is a matter of discretion reserved to the District and its agents; however, Defendants’ cannot terminate the benefit for unconstitutional, retaliatory reasons,” Bernal wrote in the order.

The district does not comment on pending litigation, Elsasser said in an email through a secretary.

Riley said he is grateful the suit is moving forward.

“We’re very happy that the First Amendment is being protected and that public servants who don’t believe in it may face the heat,” he said.

Bernal dismissed the complaint against the district due to technical reasons, according to Thomas J. Eastmond, Riley’s attorney.

The 11th Amendment prohibits federal claims from being asserted against states, and California case law suggests school districts are agencies of the state because that’s where a lot of their funding comes from.

“Because the District is immune from suit, the Court need not consider this argument,” Bernal wrote.

As for the superintendent, Bernal said the pleadings were too vague.

“Plaintiffs allege no facts supporting their belief that Elsasser knew of the prohibition or endorsed it,” he wrote.

Eastmond said he is looking into amending that complaint, which would be due by Monday, March 18.

He called the future of the lawsuit “heartening” because the judge threw out a test of the merits of a governmental body balancing its administrative interests against an employee’s right to free speech, saying this case was more governmental body versus a private citizen.

“In that case the government has virtually no legitimate interest in restricting speech,” Eastmond said. “That has actually made our case much easier.”

All the plaintiffs have to show now, he said, “is the reason for their action against Riley’s Farm is because of his speech, and they’ve done us the favor of writing that down in a letter for us.”

The board’s Oct. 2 letter was a response to a complaint from Riley of retaliatory action by two principals. It referenced Riley’s social media commentary, saying “[n]othing in the First Amendment obligates the District to continue doing business with any individual or organization that makes public statements which are inimical to the District’s educational mission … . The District has … no obligation to expose children to an individual who engaged in these crude and tasteless comments,” according to the order.

“We’re used to thinking of racial slurs and discrimination as bigotry, which they are — they’re un-American, they’re wicked. Another kind of bigotry is this: in responding to an uncomfortable idea, not with a better argument, but by trying to repress the speaker. That’s a bigotry of its own kind which, fortunately, the First Amendment provides a powerful shield against.”

The next eight months to a year will be the discovery process, then the case will go to trial, Eastmond said.

“There are a couple of other districts, if we are not able to resolve matters with, will be next up,” he added.

A lifelong Inland resident, Jennifer Iyer started working in journalism at The Press-Enterprise in 2000. She has written (and shot photos for) stories on wildflowers, camping with a dog, and many community events, and as a videographer covered wildfires and war games to blimp rides and camel racing from Temecula to Big Bear Lake, Twentynine Palms to Jurupa Valley.